• home
  • about
    • emotional intelligence at work
    • GradStart (graduate performance at work)
    • Jeremy Marchant
    • this website
  • how we help
    • people
    • teams
    • businesses
    • other organisations
  • what’s the problem?
  • blog and diversions
    • Jeremy Marchant’s blog
    • newsletters
    • quotations
    • music
    • diverting videos
  • contact
emotional intelligence at work
jeremy@emotionalintelligenceatwork.com | 01453 764 615
Intelligence at Work Linkedin Link Intelligence at Work Twitter Link Intelligence at Work Youtube Link
  • essential
    • relationships at work
    • leadership
    • communication
    • emotional intelligence
  • people
    • leadership
    • personal growth
    • managing people
    • successful teams
    • conflict resolution
    • employability
  • business
    • networking and advocacy
    • business growth and change
    • customer service
    • employability
  • stories
    • work stories
    • more stories
  • short pieces
  • long reads
  • videos
    • Jeremy Marchant’s videos
    • Jeremy Marchant’s videos
    • emotionally intelligent videos

Blog

28
JUN
2014

Mistake in NLP shock horror

by : Jeremy Marchant
comment : 0

larsen 209782_f520

The meaning of your communication lies in the response you get (Bodenhammer and Hall, The user’s manual for the brain, Crown House, 2000, p79).

A well known NLP presupposition, of course (well known to NLP people, that is). But is it actually correct?

It’s an important point if what one is communicating is a story, often laden with metaphor.

Bodenhammer and Hall say, “Regardless of your intent in communication, the response you get indicates what you communicated to the other person”. I have always understood this is because the other person has their own set of presuppositions, beliefs, level of intelligence, understanding of the language, etc etc. All these things modulate what they hear and create what they receive.

But when the other person says something back to you, the very same process applies. You cannot know what the other person intended to communicate (which was based on what they received) because your reception of what they say is itself modulated by your own set of presuppositions, beliefs, level of intelligence, understanding of the language and other factors of your own.

Bodenhammer and Hall avoid the issue somewhat by saying, “The response of the person with whom we communicate reflects the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of our communication”.

This isn’t very helpful because it does not say how the communication was ineffective.  Effectiveness, or lack thereof, is described by the comprehensibility of the communication to each particular other person. If you speak to me beautifully in Danish, it won’t be at all effective (however effective it might be to a native speaker) because, despite Borgen and The killing, I don’t have any fluency in the language.

However, it does enable us to say rather more neatly than I did above: “The response of the person with whom we communicate reflects the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of our communication to them; and our reception of that response reflects the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of their communication to us”.

Wouldn’t a more accurate, and therefore more useful formulation, be: “The meaning of a message is what the recipient makes of it”?

With apologies to Gary Larsen for nicking his cartoon

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

*
*

captcha *

Further reading

  • Fifty eight big things it would be useful for children to learnFifty eight big things it would be useful for children to learn
  • “How is EQ different from IQ?”“How is EQ different from IQ?”
  • Games people play on LinkedIn—1:  «Expert»Games people play on LinkedIn—1: «Expert»
  • How the NHS handles complaints:  does the ombudsman nail it?How the NHS handles complaints: does the ombudsman nail it?
  • Scope creepScope creep
  • Friends and family test:  could do betterFriends and family test: could do better
  • Buyer’s remorseBuyer’s remorse
  • Why the UK’s EU referendum is undemocraticWhy the UK’s EU referendum is undemocratic
  • Hunt v doctors—2Hunt v doctors—2
  • Free speech nailedFree speech nailed